STATE OF POLITICAL PARTIES. 



\^.- 



SPEECH OF HON. F. K. ZOLLIGOFRER, 

w 

OP TENNESSEE, 
12^ THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 3, 1856. 



The Souse beiiig in the Committee of the Whole j the Union, with or without, slarery, as they 
on the state of the Union — | may determine for themselves. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER said : j B'lt I .'laid that there was a good deal of ver- 

Mr. Chaibman: When jny colleague [Mr. biage in the section which I did not think at 

o T u J 1 J J u- 1 V •^<.^ 'all necessary; and havmg passed my pencil 

SMrrnl had concluded his remarks on Friday, ,' ^.^ •'' ^ ,., * 'j * „„„„ ;-„i .. 
.,:■,, . , , 1 r over the words I did not deem essential, gen- 

in which he appropriated so large a share of, ^j^,^^,^ ^,.^^^ ^.^^^ present will remember that 
his time to an examination into my personal { presented what I designated as the "pith 
politics, I immediately sought the floor for re- i and marrow" of the section. I +;£.id further, 




-.1 * .1 1 i.1 • ii c • i\. I cause it embodied the same principle — wun-ii 

other gentlemen; and this, therefore, is the!:"^ .^ . . , ,. - • *i xt L i i. 

first opportunity I have had to respond. ! '^^ \he principle assereu in the Nobnxska act, 

My colleague brings my pohtical action morej^ 1 ""^^e^'^t^d it-taough it is bu frank to 
prominently before the House than any merit ' ^a^' that among the supporters of ihat mea- 
in it deserves, and he has been pleased to at- 1 ^^^'^ there is a variety of inter,.retations, 
tribute to me a position of indnence in Tennes- i among which is one assuming that i^ rccog- 
see such as I do not claim, and to which I have ! "i^t^^h^ right of a \en-it^ori^l Leg.sla ure to 
no just title. But I am pleased that, in thelP^^^^it slavery, which I have always denied, 
searching examination he ha;5 made, he has j Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. 1 dp not wish- 
been able to make only such points upon my ! to consume any of my colkaguo's time. I only 
political record as were founded in a mi"sappre- ! ask a question, that he may explain m regard 
hension of the facts; and I feel obliged to him t to the point suggested. If iJae seventh section 
for thus giving me an opportunity to correct i of the new platform embraced the principle of 
the misapprehensions which have to some ex- j the twelfth section of the old one, why was the 
tent gone out to the country through the news- 1 old one abolished and the new one adopted? 
papers. I Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. It may have been 

My colleague it! mistaken in supposing that! because my colleague and the political orators ^ 
I ever called the platfoi-m of the American land editors of his party had so fiercely assailed 
pai'ty the " verbiage platform," or that I used ! the twelfth section. They profcj|^ed then^ 
the word "verbiage" in reference to that plat- j (however much they are noxo in love with it,) 
form at all. I did address the National Coun- 1 to regard it as a miserably "uneoard " sec- 
cil of the American party when the platform tion. The official organ of thj Aduauiistration, 
was under consideration, and I did u.se the| the Washington Union, ev^m as late as the 16th 
word " verbiage" in reference to the twelfth | February last, denounced it as embodying " a 
section of the platform adopted in June, 1855. ; discreditable and inexcusable concession tO' 
I stated that I was lor the substance of that ' Abolitionism." The organ of Democracy at 
twelfth section ; that I \varmly approved oi i Nashville called it a " wishy-washy" concern, 
the principles it embodied; that the people of i which "refused to sanction the principle of the 
the Territories, in framing tm^r State consti- { Nebraska bill." These are bi;t sarop'es of a 
tutions had, and ought to have, tho right to [ thousand similar assaults throughout the lines 
determine the character of tiieir own local | of Southern Democracy — while at the North 
institutions; and that States thus framed jit was actively assailed as a "surrender to 
should have the privilege of admission into the sZaue vower.''^ 1 say it may be tha'; 



these things had their influence. But I speak i 
alone for myself — not iinclertrtking to state t!ie 
position of other members of the Council — ■'• 
while I approved the " pith and maiTOw " of 
the twelfth section, I was willing to accept the j 
seventh section of the present platform in heu, \ 
because it embodied the same principle. I 

My colleague makes the point against me, ' 
that the thirteenth sectioii ^embraces a specill- 
catioa against the Administration for " reopen- ' 
ing sectional agitation by a repeal of the Mis- , 
.'^ouri Compromise." I will inform my colleague ' 
that I proposed to strike out that specification, 
and everj'^ specification in the thirteenth sec- 
tion ; but, there being much disorder at the | 
time, 1 failed to succeed. I did not think the; 
Administration had brought about a repeal of 
the Missouri Compromise. I knew that when 
Senator Dixon first proposed that repeal, the 
organ of the Administration at Washington 
assailed liim promptly, and long afterwards 
declared that support of the Nebrnska bill 
ought not to be regarded ai' a Dcinocratic test. 

The question was subsequently about being 
])ut in the American Council, Shall the new 
platform be adopted in lieu of the old"? when 
some member proposed a division of the ques- 
tion, which was agreed to, and the vote was 
first taken upon sti'iking out the old platform. 
T voted against striking out, but the proposi- 
tion cairicd. Then the question recurred upon 
the adoption of the rimo platfonn. f voted /r>;' 
its adoption. 1 did it just as I voted for the 
Kansas-Nebraska bill, in 1854, with some 
minor objections, which I stated at the time. 
AVhen the Nebraska bill came from the Senate, 
it embraced, for example, the Clayton amend- 
ment, restricting the elective franchise to citi- 
zens of the United States. I preferred the bill 
in that shape, as T explained. But a substi- 
tute was oflered in the House, leaving out the 
Clayton amendment, and I voted for that sub- 
stitute, behaving that if those who thought 
with me should make a point upon that par- 
ticular amendment, harmony among the fi'iends 
of the bill might be so far disturbed as to en- 
danger the bill. I was for the bill earnestly as 
a whole ; and the positions taken in my argu- 
ment at the time I have at all times stead 
ily maii^ined — before my constituents — here, 
since I murned to this Hall — at Philadelphia— 
every where, where I have discussed the question. 

But to make the most of that specification in 
the platform, it is but an expression as to a Jy- 
gone issue, while the seventh section of the 
platform lays down a vital principle of action 
i'or the jyrcsent and the future covering the 
whole ground, and re-asserting the leadingprin- 
ciple embodied both in the old 12th section 
and in the Nebraska act. 

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. V.'ith my col- 
league's permission, I desire to ask one ques- 
tion. It is not my habit to inteiTUpt gentlemen 
and I should not do so now, but from the fact 



^^\\ 

.T-^* 



that it is claimed in some places, and particu- 
larly in our own State, that that twelfth, sec- 
tion recognises the same principle which is 
contained in the Kansas-Nebraska act, and 
that it recognises the right in the people of the 
Ten-itory of Kansas to prohibit or admit sla- 
veiy while in a Territorial condition, I ask my 
colleague if he so construes that severtth sec- 
tion ? 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I stated ray position 
a few moments since upon that precise point. 
I placed it on record when the Nebraska bill 
was on its passage, and T beg leave to say to 
niv colleague [Mr. Jones] that I cannot now 
properly consume more time in dweUing upon 
it. 

My colleague [Mr. SMirn] objects to the plat- 
form adopted by the American part}', because 
it has not the word " slavery" in it, and he ar- 
gues that thereby, and therefore, we jpn^rethe 
question of slavery. Mr. Chairman, it is a lit- 
tle romarksble that the very next gentleman 
who followed my colleague in debate — the Re- 
publican member from New York [Mr. Grax- 
gek] — made an argument that slavery is ig- 
: nored by the Constitutions of the General and 
; State Governments because the word, slavery 
.is not to be found in the Constitution of the 
United States, and was not to be found in the 
\ constitutions of any of the original thirteen 
\ States. My colleague then bases his objection 
to that section of the platform upon the 
precise line of argument which Repub- 
licans and Abolitionists assume in denying the 
; legal existence of slavery — in denying that the 
constitutions of the States, and the Constitution 
of the United States have recognised the insti- 
tution, because the tcord " slavery" is not in- 
serted in them. Does he not see into what 
i fatal errors such assumptions lead ? 

My colleague expressed i-egret tliat I had re- 
marked, in debate here, that I regarded men 
who lived in the South, and believed in the 
; constitutionality of the Wilmot Proviso, as 
being, though not intending it, more danger- 
\ ous to the South tha,n Northern Abolitionists. 
Here, again, my colleague does not present 
I correctly the sentiment which I uttered. It 
1 will be remembered that, on the 17th of Janu- 
i ary last, a distinguished member from Georgia, 
[Mr. Stepuevs,] seeing me reported in the 
Globe of that day, somewhat as my cisileague 
' now reports me, propounded questions which 
enabled me promptly to state the idea I wished 
; to be understood as expressing. 1 then stated 
; (see Appendix Congressional Globe, pp. 57, oS, 
59.) that what I meant to say was, that the 
theory of the constitutionality of the Wilmot 
Proviso, particularly if held by Southern men, 
'■ was more dangerous, and had done more dam- 
I age, to the constitutional rights of the South- 
ern States than the open efforts of Northern 
Abolitionists. I explained that I did not viean 
to say that gentlemen who entertained that be- 



lief were less patriotic thscn those who believed | 
as I do, that the Federal Government h.as no j 
such constitutional power. T did not say that i 
theij were more dangerous than Northern 
Abolitionists, but that that theory or j)o- \ 
litical doctrine was more dangerous, and had 
done more damage to the South than the open : 
efforts of Abolitionists. On the conti'ai-y, I ex- ' 
pressly stated that there were man)' patriotic, 
national men who had fallen into that erronc- ! 
ous theory. >Iy colleague's vindication of their I 
patriotism, therefore, and his remark that he i 
would prefer to vote for such a man than to i 
vote for an out-and-out Free-Soiler, would seem ; 
to give rise (however intended) to an erroneous ■ 
inference as to what my actual position was. j 

Why do 1 think that that theory ol the Con- ; 
stitution is more dangerous than the open ef- \ 
forts of avowed Abolitionists V The open efforts 
of avowed Abolitionists are impotent for harm, i 
because the masses of the American people ! 
sternly reprobate them a.? inimical to the i 
Constitution and to tlie stability of the govern- 1 
ment ; but, when Southern statesmen, whose 
patriotic purposes are not doubted, gravely de- 
clare that they beUeve the AVilmot Proviso is 
constitutional, the politicians and people of the 
North are not slow to adopt this theory ; and! 
then the only question left with them is, is it ; 
expedient to enact the Wilmot Proviso? Be- 1 
lieving, as the masses in tbe North do, that j 
slavery is wrong, regarding it as " obnoxious," ] 
as leading Democrats do, whom my colleague ! 
regards as sound and true statesmen, is it .won- 
derful what demoiiistrations we have had in > 
the North in favor of the Wilmot Proviso af- ' 
ter the surrender of the constitutional ques- 
tion by those trusted at the South J The let- ' 
ter of Mr. Buchanan of the 28th of December 
last, published in the newspapers of this city 
a few days ago, is a striking illustration of the 
damage which that constitutional surrender 
has done the South. Mr. Buchanan had been 
an advocate of the Missouri restriction ; he had 
labored to extend the line proliibiting slavery, 
as marked out by Federal power, to the Paci- 
fic ocean. He now agrees that " the Missouri 
Compromise," as he calls it, " is gone, and 
gone forever."- ''But," lie say.^, " no assault 
should be made upon those Democrats who 
maintained it." " It is well known how I la- 
bored, in company with Southern men, to 
have this line extended to the Pacific ocean." 

Now, mark the palliation, " in compaiiy 
with Southern men," which this powerful and 
ti'usted statesman feels constrained to make for 
his departure from the true constitutional the- 
ory of the (government ! The Federal Govern- 
ment has no constitutional power to prohibit sla- 
very in the Territories ; and the true theory is 
now asserted in the American platform, that" the 
people of the Territories, in forming their State 
constitutions, have the right to determine this 
question for themselves. 



But is it not a little remarkable that the 
sarae politicians and nevrspai)ers which but a 
few weeks ago were assailing the American 
party for " pretermitting" this question in tho 
twelflh section of tlie June platform, now assail 
me because \ assume that it was a great error 
for Southern men to concede that the F.^deral 
Government had such powers? A few days 
before the Philadelphia Convention met, in 
Feliruary last, the Washington Union, ^.isail- 
ing that twelfth section, said : 

" It is a fatal surrender of the groundwork 'f 
true nationalitii to €xpressl{i pretermit an opinion 
as to the power of Congress to prohibit or estab- 
lish slavery in the Territories." * * * " During 
this long struggle (for Speaker) we have yet to see 
the evidence that Mrssrs. Marshidl, Zollicoft'cr, or 
any other of their Southern brethren, conceded 
that the Nebraska bill was an obnoxious act, or that 
the repeal of the Missouri restriction was a breach 
of plighted faith." * * * " How can these gen- 
tlemen now go into the Philadelphia Convention, 
and agree to allow the unsound clauses in the 
twelfth section, to winch we have directed atteiUion, 
to stand as the rule of their nationality V" 

This is but one of many examples. Now, 
however, when we have a platform which does 
not "pretermit" this question, and it is dis- 
closed that the most exalt<?d and trusted 
Democrats openly assert the Federal poicer to 
prohibit slavery, I am a„ssailed for pointing 
out the danger of such doctrine to the South- 
ern States. 

My colleague attacks the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, [Mr. Ffi.i.EK,] for whom 1 voted 
for Speaker, charging that in 18i0 he was "a 
Wilmot provisoist up to the hub," and "nomi- 
nated on an Abolition platform," and that last 
year he "defeated Mr. Wright upon the ground 
"that he (Mr. Wright) voted for the Nebraska 
bill." The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 
been absent from the Capitol for more than a 
month, and is not here to defend himself I 
have no me.ans of knowing anything of the 
reliability of the grounds upon which my col- 
league makes these charges ; but, when here, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania stated in his 
place in the House that he had "never been 
called upon to aflBrm or deny the constitution- 
ality of the Wilmot proviso," and had " never 
! taken any public position upon that subject 
before," but was "willing, in all frankness and 
! candor, to do so now," and then proceeded to 
i say : " I hold, in the absence of express autho- 
' rity, that Congress has no constitutional right 
to legislate upon the subject of slavery." Again, 
I he said, " I am opposed to any legislation on 
•those subjects," (alluding to the restoration of 
.the Missouri restriction, and to the prohibition 
; of slavery in the Territories.) As to beating 
; Mr. Wright, he said, " it was not the auti-Ne- 
I braska issue which determined that election." 
iMy colleague makes, therefore, direct issue 
iwith the declarations of the gentleman from 



Pennsylvania, and does not disclose upon what I half dozen national Americans who, under his 
authority he docs so, or furnish any evidence | plurality rule, voted for Mr. Fullkr, are alone 
that it h genuine, responsible for Mr. Banks's election, because 

My colleague defends the strange and inipor-jthey had, the day before, voted voluntarily for 
tant part he took in the late election of iSpeak- Mr. Aikex. It was well known that, while 
ar, in moving; and voting for the plurality rule, jthey were very willin<r, if left to act for them- 
aiid thereby seciring the election of the pre- i selves, to vote for a Democrat, they -were not 
sent incumbent of the chair. I am not at all willinrj to ilo so under rorapnlsiov. They had 
surprised that he should do so, after what 1 1 voted in a body, at diifei-ent times, io;- more 
have seen in the newspapers, and what I have I than one Democrat, and were willing to con- 
re^d in my letters from home; and recollect- ; tin ue to do so ; but they resisted the plurality 
ing that my coi league has recently been at 'rule. After my colleague moved the plurality 
home, and heard the thundei's of disapproba- ' rule, and before the vote was taken upon it, 
tion which are being visited on him for making I Mr. Carlii.e, a national American, offered the 
that movoment^ — I say I am not at all sur- : following resolution as a substitute for my 
prised that he should seize the first opportu- ' colleague's proposition : 

nity, without waiting for attack here to defend j ''Resolved, That the Hon. "William Aike.v, a 
himself as well as he can, in that particular ' Representative from the State of South Carolina, 
action. i be, and he is hereby, declared the Speaker of the 

I propose, Mr. Chairman, to look at the po- ' Thirty-Fourt'a Congress." 
litical record conn'^cted with this action for a \ My colleague objected; and the previous 
mpment. Wc'hpd been engaged in a long! question (demanded also by my colleague) hav- 
struggle over the Speakership. My colleague, j ing been seconded, the resolution could not be 
ri5 early as the middle of December, seemed to acted upon. lie seemed resolved to force us 
be somewhat restless, and, addressing the ; under a rule which he knew was very obnox- 
Ilouse, said he was solicitous that an election : ious. Having succeeded in this, the candidate 
should take place. He said that those op- j of the Democratic party [Mr. Orr] immediately 
posed to the extension of slavery had a \ax^<i withdrew infaror of -Mr. Aiken; apparently 
majority, and asked them why they did not with a viev>-, if not expressly to give to the 
elect their man? He surmised that the diiH- proposed teatRn R\r of jDe?7iocra'tic 2Jre-arrange- 
culty probably grew out of unsettled questions ???e??^, (which was, of course, distasteful to 
as to how the committees sho'^ld be fc^rmed. Americans, v,'ho, in a spirit of liberality, al- 
He asked, if the majority cannot organize the \ ready yielded everything but principle,) at 
House, "who can do it, and how can it bo! least with a view of forcing a direct test be- 
done?" He could not "vote for the man whoitween Aiken and Banks, under the plurality 
entertains the principles of that party;" but; rule. And this, too, when Democrats had re- 
he said, " I want to sec an organization, and I ; fused to vote for an Amei'ican under any cir- 
hope it will soon be effected.'' ' i cumstanccs ! 

Subsequently there were various proposi- ^ Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. If my colleague 
tions made to institute the plurality rule. They ; will allow me to interrupt him for a moment, 
failed, by diat of the united votes of National I desire to ask him this question : Did not a 
Americans and Democrats, with a few Repub- '. sufficient number of Americans vote for the 
licans who were opposed to Mr. Banks." This gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Aiken,] 
brought about a discussion among members as the day before, to have elected bim on the first 
to what would be the effect of that rule. The vote under the plurality rule ; and whether, if 
question was-r.l^o discussed in the newspapers, i the same members of the American party who 
And what was the public opinion in the House [voted for Governor Aiken on the day before 
and out of the House? What was the opinion . had voted for him on the day the election took 
of Southern iiiCn, Northern men, Democrats, place, it would not have elected him? 
Americans, and Sepubiicans? Why, that if; Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. It is trne that the 
the plurality -jujIp was adopted Mr. Banks American party had voted for Governor Aike^ 
uould ]>c elected Speaker ! , Under these cir- ' voluntarily ; but they had not voted for him 
cumstanees, my colleague, on the 2d of Febru- ! under the circumstances which existed when 
ary, renewed the proposition to adopt the plu- the election took place. They had not voted 
rality rule. He seems to have solved, in his for him when the candidate of the Democratic 
own mind, the question, " Who can do it, and party had withdrawn. They had not voted for 
hoiD c-an it J^ dore?^'' His proposition was him when the Democratic party had united 
carried by Republican votes, and those of a '■ with the Republicans in forcing on us the 
few Democrats, to-wit : Messrs. Barclay, \ plursjity rule. And sir, this union took place 
Clingman, Herbert, Hickman, Jewett, Kelly, i after the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Tripfe,] 
S. A. Smith, and Williams — the National a member of the American party, had stated 
Americjms and the great bo<ly of the Derao- that that party would not vote on compulsion. 



crats voting rgainst it. 

My colleague makes the argument that the 



Mr, SMITH. My colleague did not answer 
as to whether, if the same members of the 



A^jierican party who voted for Mr. Aiken the j assaults upon the sound Democrats of the 
dnr before had voted for him on the day of] North should cease? I think it demonstrable 
elqpion, he would not now have been the : that these positions of my colleague are all 
Sp/eftker of this House ? i more or less fallacious. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. As the whole body But first, a word as to Mr. RicnARDsox. My 
o^l Americans did vote for Governor Aiken the so-called "assault" consisted merely in pro- 
dny before, and did not elect him, how does it poundip^ questions which drew from him his 
aj^pear that they could have elected him? And ' own reel opini/^ns. lie disclosed, that he was 

)w is it that they did not elect him ? What j still the advocate of the constitutionality of the 

ere the Democrats doin» then ? Wilmot Proviso, and that under certain circum- 

Mr. SMITH. If my colleague will allow me stances he had, in 1850, pledged himself to 
b ask him one other question, I will not take vote for it; but that he now repudiated the 
Ijip his time further. Did not the gentlemen | pledge to vote for the Wilmot Proviso, which 
rem New York, [Messrs. Wiiitnky, Valk and 1 1 was really much gratified at, for I have long 
"avard Clark,] and the gentlemen from | regarded the gentleman from Illinois as one of 

ennsylvania, [Messrs. Broom and Fct.i.er,] ' the soundest of Northern Democrats. So I regard 
vote for Governor Aikex; and if they had other prominent Democrats of that State, at 
voted for him on Saturday would he not have \ the head of whom stand Senators Douglas and 
"been elected? — whether they did not vote j Shields. But, while 1 concede this, is it not 
against him on that day ? my right, nay, my duty, to point out the yet 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. The records show! very great unsoundness of their actual, record- 
Tiow gentlemen voted — I cannot tell whether ed opinions ? If such exposures embarrass 
the whole American vote would have elected I them, or gentlemen who endorse and support 
Mr. Aiken, unless I knew how Democratic ! them, it is not my fault, but the fault of the 
votes would have been cast in that event. But 'political records they have made for them- 
my colleague should not take up my time to i selves. For example, I have a sketch of a 
catechize me in this irregular manner. I speech before me, which General Shields made 

Mr. SMITH.' Very well. T have stated that! in. defence of the Nebraska bill, at Springfield, 
fact in my speech, and I \yill not take up the! IlHnois, in the fall of 1854, which appeared in 
time of my colleague by further referring to it. [the Washington Union of October 28, of that 

Mr. WHITNEY. I will take pleasure in I year. Now, remembering that the Nebraska 
explaining the remark of the gentleman from • bill is the present Democratic platform, this 
Tennessee, [Mr. S-Mirii,] so far as I am person- ' extract is important. Here it is : see upon 
ally concerned, if the committee will give me what ground he defends that measure ! He 
an opportunity, when ihe gentleman has con- j said : 
eluded his remarks . t, " Kansas and Nebraska wero /rrr «o,^ and the 

Mr. TALK. If the gentleman from Ten- ! .^ j^ ^^^^^ ^„^,,j j. ^;,,^ ^^,,. The establi-h- 
nessee will allow me for one single moment, I j ^^^^ ^f slavery in those Territories was not only 
desire to state what will be within the recol- 1 improbable, but impomhh, and it was always wiser 
lection of many gentlemen here, that I was not I and better to let people work out a great good for 
in tlxe IlQtise when the final vote on the elec- 1 themselves, than have it forced upoc them by 
lion of Sfi^ier was taken, and therefore the I others ; and this was the way in which freemen 
statement ''of the gentleman from Tennessee, ' alwavs do what is great and good, by their own 
[Mr. Smith,] that I voted against Governor Ai- 1 free and voluntary act. The principles of non-in- 
KEN cannot be correct. i tervention would not only keep Kansas and ^e- 

Mr. SMITH. I should like to know where braska what they are now— /rer— but woumI by its 
the gentleman was? He was in the House im- ' f^'l ^^\ ^^}^ operation if we acquire the continent 
mediately before the vote was taken. , to the I.thmus of Danen, rcork wUh '^^chpou^ey 

Mr. VALK. I was not. \ force and eiJect that no man won dc.er see anotha 

\r r7i^T T Tz-^r. nnr-T) \i ii u \ davc lemtory on tIns Continent. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. My colleague has a I ■^ • i • i 

theory with regard to the Democratic partv, i The Washington Union, in the article copy- 
whiciilwish to examine. In his speech the I ing this extract, expresses its nrattjicatwn 
other day, and in the one to which ho then { that General Shields is, in the canvass in 
jJluded, made at the last Congress, he laid his State, giving ^wjcer/^nZ aid to his dtstm- 
lowu the positions that his party is one oV gui>ihed colleague, Judge Donglm,'' ^vl^ re- 
?ti-ict constructions of the constitution— that ' marks, that in this particular speech, ''he sus- 
ts elementary principles have ever been the' tained the principles of the Kebras/.abilL.wit/i. 
■ame— that it is a true and sound imiiona,] 'great force and e feet T He was giving power- 
.orty, and should be relied upon to protect the ; iful aid" to Judge Douglas. And what was 
.•;t^rests and rights ol the South. In this con- 1 Judge Douglas doing? I have no copies of 
.. •■::on I remember that, having assumed that ' the speeches he was making in Illinois; but I 

had attempieJ to throw discredit upon the ! have an extract of a letter he addressed to the 
'•emocratic candidate for Speaker, [Mr. Rick- j editor of the Concord (N. H.) Patriot, dated 

-■:'S0.\,] he asks if it i.« not time that these • February IG, 1854, in which, speaking of the 



!\ 



allegation in ilic North that the Ncbraslva bill 
opens the whole country to slavery, he asks : j 

" Why do they not state the matter truly, and i 
state that it opens the cotintry to freedom^ by leav- ! 
5ng the people perfectly free to do as they please?" 

This is very similai' to sentiments expressed ; 
by the same distinguished gentleman' in the I 
Senate, in his spc-ecli on the Territorial ques- \ 
tion, on the 13th and 14th March, 1850. Hei 
said : 1 

" Last year I introduced a bill for the admission I 
of all the country acquired from Mexico by the j 
treaty of peace mto the Union as one State, re- 1 
serving the right to form new States out of any i 
portion of said territory lying east of the Sierra i 
Nevada mountains." * * " If my bill of last { 
session had become the law of the land — which it ■ 
ceitainly would have done if he (Mr. Hale) had . 
not united his forces with those of the Senator ■ 
from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] to defeat it — 
the whole of the territory acquired from Mexico \ 
would, at this moment, have been dedicated to free- 
dom forever, by a constitutional provision.'''' 

In the same speech, speaking of the effect of 
his own amendment to the Texas annexation 
resolution, he said : 

" While Texas remained an independent Power, 
it was all slave teri'itory, from the Gulf of Mexico 
to the forty-second parallel of latitude. By the 
resolution of annexation, five and a half degrees of 
this slave territory, to-wit : all between thirty-six 
and a half and the forty-second parallels were to 
become ' fixed, pledged, fastened to be \free, and 
not ' slave territory forever, by the splemn guaran- 
tees of law.' Here is a territory stretcliing across 
five and a halt degrees Qihi\A\M(!iQ, withdrawn from 
slavery and devottd to freedom, by the very act 
which the Senator [Mr. Webster] has chosen to 
denounce and deride as the work of the Northern 
Democracy" 

" And when the northern Democrats are ar- 
raigned and condemned for having contributed to 
the extension of slavery, the jive and a half de- 
grees of latitude north of 36 deg. 30 min., for 
which provision was made to be converted from 
slave into free territory absolutely, and probably 
double that amount south of that line by the ac- 
tion of the people themselves when they come to 
form a State constitution, oiiyht to have been 
brought to the notice of the public, and put to 
our credit in the stateiiient of the account." 

Here we have Judge Donglaii's own inter- 
pretation of his own action, connected with 
the three moat momentous viensures toxiching 
the public territories, for which his southern 
friends give him so much credit ! fs it not 
legitimate to present these record fiicts of his- 
tory V Still it is just to say, that Messrs. 
Douglas, Shields, and Richardson, are of the 
very soundest of northern Democrats, and are 
really entitled to much credit for tlie patriotism 
and general nationality of tlieir sentiments. 

They are far better than the masses of the 
Democratic party at the Nortli, who have been 
so fearfully compiicated with Free-Soilism and 



the Wilmot proviso. So generally has tiiis 
been so, that, after Mr. Pierce's nomination 
for the Presidency, the Washington Uniljin, 
edited by a Tennesseean, was forced to ?>b.Y\ — 
at least, I have often seen this language quoted 
from it : 

" The Free-Soil Democratic leaders of the Nonh 
area reguiar portion of the Democratic pari^; 
and General Pierce, if elected, will make no dm^.^ 
tinction between them and, tlie rest of the Derne-A 
cracy in the distributiori of official patronage, a'rm'< 
in the selection of agents for administering th'e.;, 
Government" 

The public offices were accordingly filled, t 
a great extent, by Free-soil Democrats fro; 
the North— such as Dix, Bishop, Cochrane, 
Fowler, Crocker, &c. — while sound national 
men — such as Dickinson, Bronson, and others 
— were neglected or proscribed, W. J. Brown, 
of Indiana, who would have been made the 
Democratic Speaker of this House, in the 
Thirty-Second Congress, but for the acciden- 
tal discovery that he had given a written 
pledge to Wilmot that he would compose the 
committees with Free-soil majorities, was ap- 
pointed to, and now holds under the Adminis- 
ti'ation a high and important office. The pre- 
sent Secretary of the Interior is a Wilmot 
Proviso Free-soiLer of so strong a type a^s to 
deny that slaves are pti'operty. Our Minister 
Plenipotentiary to Russia is a Free-soiler. Of 
the seventy delegates appointed by the Softs 
I to attend the Democratic convention in June 
j next, all were old Buffalo platform Free-soilers 
1 of 1848 (says the New York National Demo- 
i crat) but seven. But I have not time to go 
further into these prolific details. 

What is the present ostensible position of 
the Democratic party V Why, its platform is 
not founded upon principle at all, but upon a 
solitary measure — the Nebraska bill — which 
is construed varion.sIy by its various support- 
ers. General Cass, for example, heads those 
who see m it squatter sovereignty; my col- 
league is of those who understand it very dif- 
ferently ; General Sliields is of the class who 
think it a measure '* for freedom ;" and the 
distinguished C. C. Cambreleng, as orthodox 
a Democrat as any of them, is in Ipve with it, 
I because Jie says it will so* operate as to leuve 
I " not a single square inch of slave territory in 
j the United States." 

1 Where, then, is the identity o£ principle- - 
1 where the soundness of the Democratic part}', 
! of which my colleague speaks V The same 
i radical diSerences of opinion which character- 
{ izc them on slavery (juestions, also attend 
them on other leading branches of public pol- 
icy'. But my colleague claims that his pailj 
are 'strict constructionists; and, before I leave 
this slavery question, let me call attention it 
I the fact that there is a large section of the D^ ' 
i mocratic pai'ty who are such strict constrj 
1 tionists that they deny that the Federal 




«mni (cnt had the constitutional right to pass ; ask my colleague whether he did not vote for 
the \ /iresent fugitive slave lav*-. the great river and harbor bill of last Congress, 

M k SMITH, of Tennessee. Do T understand which was passed by a large majority in a 
my (colleague to say that any recognised part j House having a Democratic majority of eighty- 
of t! he Democratic party at the North resist the I six — which also passed a Democratic Senate, 
cxe fcution of the fugitive slave law ? j but was vetoed by the President upon the 

? Mr. ZOLLICOFFEil. I cite the late distin- ! ground that it was vncomtitutional? 
gu tshed gentleman from Massachusetts, Robert! Mr. SMITH. I did vota for it, and I should 
Jls Intoul, Jr., formerly a member of this House, [vote for it again; and I do not look to the 
/Mr. SMITH. Mr. Rantoul was an Aboli- \ President to form opinions for me upon consti- 
ti' nnist, and was turned, heels over head, outjtutional questions. 

o' r the Baltimore Convention, in 1852, upon Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. My argument is thus 
t'/.iat very account. 



Mr. ZOLLICOFFEiJ. I will give my col- 
1 'eague another instance, not of a Northern man, 
put a Southf^rn man, I mean the present See- 
/retary of War, who is reported as saying, in a 
,'published speech, that " when any State in the 
; I'nion shall choose to set aside the (fugitive 



illustrated, that there has been no unity of 
opinion or action among Democrats, either 
upon the slavery question or any other, unless 
it is that unity which holds together a body of 
men of diverse and extreme opinions for the 
sake of party success. 

It is proper to say, that while I belong to 



slave) law, it is within her sovereignty and the American party, and am an ardent Ameri- 
beyond our power!''' And further to have .said, jean, for reasons which 1 have assigned to my 
that in such contingency, "/,./(5/'fl7?.e,wi7ZH6'('(??' I constituents, and am ready to assign on all 
€,{'■'•' tiiy vole to extend the avia of the Federal: i)vor>cr occasions, there'are thoi;e who are said 
power for her coercion.^-* Such is the extent j to belong to the American or Know-Nothing 
to which strict construction is carried in the i party frori) whom I differ so widely upon sla- 
Democratic party ! very questions, ar;d upon other questions, that 

Now, as we have seen there is no unity of i I can have no political affiliation with them, 
sentiment among Democrats upon slavery i There were some such for a lime in the Na- 
questions, where do we discover the unitj^ ? | tional Council at Philadelphia, and I very 
Is it to be found in questions relating to the ! plain!}" so declared to them. It is right and 
disposition of the public lands? Look at the 'proper that we should be candid upon such 
votes taken in this Hall, and you will find that ; matters ; and I think my colleague has fallen 
the Democratic members have been divided ; into a verjj^ great error in propagating the idea 
upon every sort of land question. Is it upon the other day, and in his speech a year ago — 
improvements of rivers and harbors "? — upon i and as he is in the habit of doing— that the 
the homestead bills? — upon the PaciSc road ? 1 Democracy is a unit in elementary principles, 
— or any other leading subject of legislation ? j of sound national materials, and oiigiit to be 
The same contrariety of position is found i securely trusted by the patriotic masses, who 
■iniong Democratic members in all! It was t would guard and preserve the Constitution and 
hut the other day chat the Democratic member | the Union. It is a great fjdlacy, sir. 
from Virginia [Mr. Letcher] read us a strict' The Americans have nominated sound na- 
construction lecture upon the Pacific railroad, i tional men for President and Vicu President, 
rmd yet my colleage is in favor of that mea- who will faithfully regard the constitutional 
• ure. i rights of every section of the Union. My coi- 

^n regard to internal improvements, let me | league says that unless the South can unite, 
"-^Tre i^^guage here quoted I have seen attribu- 1 fnd defend those men in the North who stand 
:.?d to the Oktiiiguished gentleman in what pur- ' "7 the guaranties of the Constitution, the Union 
ports to be an exivact of a speech which was pub- ''' y*'^<'- Why, then, should notUnion-loving 
lif^hed in the newspa^>ers ; but I am at present ; n^en in the South at once unite upon Millard 
unable to state what particular speech. l' do not Fillmore? My colleague says the only effect 
tind the language employeO ia his remarks iu the ; of his nomination is to " divide the South." 
-enate in 1350, when the present Fugitive Slave ] Why should it do so? Why should the Dem- 
:;ct was discussed, for which ait he voted, with an ocr.atic party nominate a separate ticket, and 
expression of the wish that the provision of the . thus " divide the South V 'In the struggle for 

voted 
actional 

community haa been relied on, and State lejrisla- ° . ' .',,'" ' ' . "• 

tion left to provide for its execution; but express-' ^"•T/''"'^"™^*.^"'^'^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^'^ A'^fT!!:" 
ing a willingness, within the limits of his opinion ' ^^"^^» f^^^'- ^P^^^ f^ proscription what do they 
,s to what Congress mav do, to leave to tho bor- 1 ^'■'^'^ by saying the South snould unite ? xMy 
ier States to frame tbe law as they may think best. ' colleague says the Americans have no hope of 
As to the language quoted above, I will endeavor ' camang any State in the North. Let him 
-oon to determine the precise source from which ! wait and see! AVhat States have the I)eino- 
;c comes. \crat^ carried? Where is the evidence that 




« 



8 



any man they can nominate can bent Millard ' 
FiUmore ? It is true the Americans have to ; 
contend against both the Deniocr^*'" ""-^ ^" 
Dublican parties — the Republicans LIBRARY 
Ashing to merge everything int( 
organization against slavery, anc 
crats desiring to sink every quei 
Nebraska bill, and itn interpretat 
conservative men of the North, 
and West, seeing the danger U. 
which must follow the formation of two 
geographical parties, and knowing Mr. Fillmore 
as the true and tried patriot who guided the 
ship of State in the storm of 1850, will gather 
around his standard, and build up a great na- 
tional party, to stand as a breakwater between 
those extreme parties which, for political suc- 
cess, would seem to be ready to put even the 
stability of the Government to the hazard. 

Thousands of c(»nservative men in the North, 
temporarily di-awn into combination with Re- 
publicans ag£iinst the Nebraska bill, have al- 
ready abandoned them, and thousands more 
will continue to do so, as the Republicans more 




and more disclose the sectional and aboiitioc 
purposes they have in view. Soon, I trust,. 
" ch gave them tempOirary 
lubsided, and their dimen- 
nk into the comparatively 
iiion forces which have 
to exist in the NorthVim 
;arded by the Republickns 
QQQ oQQ Q A keep up the slavery dj- 
OSO ^^^__". T.ieve that the Democn.ts 
think it the lest Democratic policy, too. Bo> 
that, between them, we are likely to have gre^t 
efforts made to keep up the agitation^ similar 
to that of 1848 and '49, which came very nea^ 
dissolving the Union. The Americans stand 
between this cross-firing — they have to grappk 
with both Republicans and Democrats — bui 
they feel that they are strong in their national, 
conservative sentiments — strong in their can- 
didates — strong in their duty to the constitu- 
tion and the Union, and that they will ^ir 
popular strength from all who would not se- 
the government destroyed in sectiona] strift 



FOR SALE AT THE AMERICAN ORGA>? OFFICE. 



THE WEEKLY AMERICAN ORGAN 



la published every Saturday on the following 
Terms: 



1 copy, oae year - 

3 copies, one year 

10 copies, one year 



$2.00, 

■ 6.00 

■ 16.00 



1 copy, six months - - $1.00 

5 copies, six months - 5.00 

10 copies, six months - 8.00 



2^" Payments always in advance. 

All communications on business connected with this paper 
must be directed to the " American Organ" Washington City, 
aad be post-paid. 

\^° These pamphlets can be obtained by addressing "Ameri- 
can Organ," Washington City, D. C. Frice fl.OO p«r hundred, 
postage paid. 



LIBRARY Qp 

t////7/l'«///«»,.£°'^^^^ss 



0^7 898299;,' 



HOLLINGER 
pH8J 

MILL RUN F3-1543 



